Crowdfunding has emerged as a mechanism to raise funds for entrepreneurial ideas. On crowdfunding platforms, backers (i.e., individuals who fund ideas) jointly fund the same idea, leading to affiliations, or overlaps, within the community. The authors find that while an increase in the total number of backers may positively affect funding behavior, the resulting affiliations affect funding negatively. They reason that when affiliated others fund a new idea, individuals may feel less of a need to fund, a process known as “vicarious moral licensing.” Drawing on data collected from 2,021 ideas on a prominent crowdfunding platform, the authors show that prior affiliation among backers negatively affects an idea’s funding amount and eventual funding success. Creator engagement (i.e., idea description and updates) and backer engagement (i.e., Facebook shares) moderate this negative effect. The effect of affiliation is robust across several instrumental variables, model specifications, measures of affiliation, and multiple crowdfunding outcomes. Results from three experiments, a survey, and interviews with backers support the negative effect of affiliation and show that it can be explained by vicarious moral licensing. The authors develop actionable insights for creators to mitigate the negative effects of affiliation with the language used in idea descriptions and updates.
AgrawalAjayCataliniChristianGoldfarbAvi (2015), “Crowdfunding: Geography, Social Networks, and the Timing of Investment Decisions,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24 (2), 253–74.
2.
AllenB.J.ChandrasekaranDeepaBasuroySuman (2018), “Design Crowdsourcing: The Impact on New Product Performance of Sourcing Design Solutions from the ‘Crowd’,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (2), 106–23.
3.
AllisonThomas H.DavisBlakley C.ShortJeremy C.WebbJustin W. (2015), “Crowdfunding in a Prosocial Microlending Environment: Examining the Role of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Cues,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39 (1), 53–73.
4.
BayusBarry L. (2013), “Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Over time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community,” Management Science, 59 (1), 226–44.
5.
BergerChristophWinkelsMartinLischkeAlexanderHöppnerJacqueline (2012), “GazeAlyze: a MATLAB Toolbox for the Analysis of Eye Movement Data,” Behavior Research Methods, 44 (2), 404–19.
6.
BuechelEva C.JaniszewskiChris (2013), “A Lot of Work or a Work of Art: How the Structure of a Customized Assembly Task Determines the Utility Derived From Assembly Effort,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 960–72.
7.
BurtRonald S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Boston: Harvard University Press.
8.
BurtchGordonGhoseAnindyaWattalSunil (2013), “An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents and Consequences of Contribution Patterns in Crowd-funded Markets,” Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 499–519.
9.
CamachoNunoNamHyoryungKannanP.K.StremerschStefan (2019), “Tournaments to Crowdsource Innovation: The Role of Moderator Feedback and Participation Intensity,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (2), 138–57.
10.
ClarkMargaret S.MilsJudson (1993), “The Difference Between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What It Is and Is Not,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (6), 684–91.
EckhardtGiana M.HoustonMark B.JiangBaojunLambertonCaitRindfleischAricZervasGeorgios (2019), “Marketing in the Sharing Economy,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (5), 5–27.
16.
FanTingtingGaoLeileiSteinhartYael (2020), “The Small Predicts Large Effect in Crowdfunding,” Journal of Consumer Research, 47 (4), 544–65.
17.
FaustKatherine (1997), “Centrality in Affiliation Networks,” Social Networks, 19 (2), 157–91.
18.
FiskeAlan P. (1992), “The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations,” Psychological Review, 99 (4), 689–723.
19.
GerberElizabeth M.HuiJulie (2014), “Crowdfunding: Motivations and Deterrents for Participation,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20 (6), 24–32.
20.
GermannFrankEbbesPeterGrewalRajdeep (2015), “The Chief Marketing Officer Matters!” Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 1–22.
21.
GoenkaShreyansVan OsselaerStijn M.J. (2019), “Charities Can Increase the Effectiveness of Donation Appeals by Using a Morally Congruent Positive Emotion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (4), 774–90.
22.
GoldsteinNoah J.CialdiniRobert B. (2007), “The Spyglass Self: A Model of Vicarious Self-Perception,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (3), 402–17.
23.
HongYiliHuYuhengBurtchGordon (2018), “Embeddedness, Prosociality, and Social Influence: Evidence from Online Crowdfunding,” MIS Quarterly, 42 (4), 1211–24.
24.
HouRuiLiLeimingLiuBingquan (2020), “Backers Investment Behavior on Explicit and Implicit Factors in Reward-Based Crowdfunding Based on ELM Theory,” PLoS One, 15 (8), e0236979.
KimCheonsooYangSung-Un (2017), “Like, Comment, and Share on Facebook: How Each Behavior Differs from the Other,” Public Relations Review, 43 (2), 441–49.
30.
KouchakiMaryam (2011), “Vicarious Moral Licensing: The Influence of Others’ Past Moral Actions on Moral Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (4), 702–15.
31.
KuppuswamyVenkatBayusBarry L. (2017), “Does My Contribution to Your Crowdfunding Project Matter?” Journal of Business Venturing, 32 (1), 72–89.
32.
LearyMark R. (2010), “Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging: The Pursuit of Interpersonal Connection,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 5th ed.GilbertD.T.LindzeyG.FiskeS.T., eds. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
33.
LiGenWangJing (2019), “Threshold Effects on Backer Motivations in Reward-Based Crowdfunding,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 36 (2), 546–73.
34.
LinMingfengPrabhalaNagpurnanand R.ViswanathanSiva (2013), “Judging Borrowers by the Company They Keep: Friendship Networks and Information Asymmetry in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending,” Management Science, 59 (1), 17–35.
35.
MallapragadaGirishGrewalRajdeepLilienGary (2012), “User-Generated Open Source Products: Founder’s Social Capital and Time to Product Release,” Marketing Science, 31 (3), 474–92.
36.
MatthewsWilliam JohnGheorghiuAna I.CallanMitchell J. (2016), “Why Do We Overestimate Others’ Willingness to Pay?” Judgment and Decision Making, 11 (1), 21–39.
37.
MeijersMarijn H.C.NoordewierMarret K.VerleghPeeter W.J.ZebregsSimonSmitEdith G. (2019), “Taking Close Others’ Environmental Behavior into Account When Striking the Moral Balance? Evidence for Vicarious Licensing, Not for Vicarious Cleansing,” Environment and Behavior, 51 (9/10), 1027–54.
38.
MoradiMasoudDassMayukh (2019), “An Investigation into the Effects of Message Framing on Crowdfunding Funding Level,” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 20 (4), 238–54.
39.
MorewedgeCarey K.ZhuMengBuechelEva C. (2019), “Hedonic Contrast Effects are Larger when Comparisons are Social,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (2), 286–306.
40.
NairHarikesh S.ManchandaPuneetBhatiaTulikaa (2010), “Asymmetric Social Interactions in Physician Prescription Behavior: The Role of Opinion Leaders,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 883–95.
41.
NarayanVishalKadiyaliVrinda (2016), “Repeated Interactions and Improved Outcomes: An Empirical Analysis of Movie Production in the U.S.,” Management Science, 62 (2), 591–607.
42.
NetzerOdedLemaireAlainHerzensteinMichal (2019), “When Words Sweat: Identifying Signals for Loan Default in the Text of Loan Applications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (6), 960–80.
43.
NewmanKevin P.BrucksMerrie (2018), “The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility Efforts on the Moral Behavior of High Self-Brand Overlap Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (2), 253–71.
44.
PapiesDominikEbbesPetervan HeerdeHarald J. (2017), “Addressing Endogeneity in Marketing Models,” in Advanced Methods for Modeling Markets, WieringaJ.E.PauwelsK.H.LeeflangP.S.H.BijmoltT.H.A, eds. Berlin: Springer.
45.
ParkEunhoRishikaRishikaJanakiramanRamkumarHoustonMark B.YooByungjoon (2018), “Social Dollars in Online Communities: The Effect of Product, User, and Network Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (1), 93–114.
46.
PennebakerJames W.BoydRyan L.JordanKaylaBlackburnKate (2015), The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Austin: University of Texas.
47.
PietraszkiewiczAgnieszkaSoppeBirtheFormanowiczMagdalena (2017), “Go Pro Bono: Prosocial Language as a Success Factor in Crowdfunding,” Social Psychology, 48 (5), 265–78.
48.
RansbothamSamKaneGerald C.LurieNicholas H. (2012), “Network Characteristics and the Value of Collaborative User-Generated Content,” Marketing Science, 31 (3), 387–405.
49.
RossiPeter E. (2014), “Even the Rich Can Make Themselves Poor: A Critical Examination of IV Methods in Marketing Applications,” Marketing Science, 33 (5), 655–72.
50.
SimpsonBonnieSchreierMartinBitterlSallyWhiteKatherine (2021), “Making the World a Better Place: How Crowdfunding Increases Consumer Demand for Social-Good Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 58 (2), 363–76.
51.
SridharShrihariGermannFrankKangCharlesGrewalRajdeep (2016), “Relating Online, Regional, and National Advertising to Firm Value,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (4), 39–55.
52.
SrinivasanRajiWuytsStefanMallapragadaGirish (2018), “Corporate Board Interlocks and New Product Introductions,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (1), 132–48.
StockJames H.WrightJonathan H.YogoMotohiro (2002), “A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20 (4), 518–29.
56.
SunYachengDongXiaojingMcIntyreShelby (2017), “Motivation of User-Generated Content: Social Connectedness Moderates the Effects of Monetary Rewards,” Marketing Science, 36 (3), 329–37.
57.
SunderSarangKimKihyun HannahYorkstonEric A. (2019), “What Drives Herding Behavior in Online Ratings? The Role of Rater Experience, Product Portfolio, and Diverging Opinions,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (6), 93–112.
58.
SwaminathanVanithaMoormanChristine (2009), “Marketing Alliances, Firm Networks, and Firm Value Creation,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 52–69.
59.
TianKelly T.BeardenWilliam O.HunterGary L. (2001), “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 50–66.
60.
WassermanStanleyFaustKatherine (1999), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61.
WattsDuncan J. (1999), “Networks, Dynamics, and the Small-World Phenomenon,” American Journal of Sociology, 105 (2), 493–527.
62.
WeiYanhao “Max”HongJihoonTellisGerard J. (2021), “Machine Learning for Creativity: Using Similarity Networks to Design Better Crowdfunding Projects,” Journal of Marketing(published online March 9),https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211005481.
63.
WesslingKathryn SharpeHuberJoelNetzerOded (2017), “MTurk Character Misrepresentation: Assessment and Solutions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (1), 211–30.
64.
XiangDiandianZhangLeinanTaoQiuyanWangYongguiMaShuang (2019), “Informational or Emotional Appeals in Crowdfunding Message Strategy: An Empirical Investigation of Backers’ Support Decisions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (6), 1046–63.
65.
YounkinPeterKuppuswamyVenkat (2017), “The Colorblind Crowd? Founder Race and Performance in Crowdfunding,” Management Science, 64 (7), 3269–87.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
